Your Turn — July 27, 2013

Published 3:56 pm, Friday, July 26, 2013

Photo: Alexander Zemlianichenko Jr. / Associated Press

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

Protesters rally in support of NSA leaker Edward Snowden in Moscow. Snowden wants asylum in Russia and is willing to stop sharing information as a trade-off for such a deal, according to reports. A reader says the Snowden problem is an internal NSA issue that is more ridiculous than dangerous. less

Protesters rally in support of NSA leaker Edward Snowden in Moscow. Snowden wants asylum in Russia and is willing to stop sharing information as a trade-off for such a deal, according to reports. A reader says ... more

Photo: Alexander Zemlianichenko Jr. / Associated Press

Your Turn — July 27, 2013

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

Dissecting beliefs

Re: “Paul outside of GOP direction,” Other Views, July 20:

Michael Gerson goes to great lengths to dissect Rand Paul and his belief in Libertarianism. I am sure if Gerson had made this public analysis of our current president, we might not have had the messed-up country that exists now. If he continues to try to destroy people, he should make sure he does it with all potential candidates.

Considering that the U.S. is pre-eminent technologically, I am nonplussed that the NSA has been so primitive in response to the Snowden problem: punish the messenger instead of working on the problem. Since no one has died or is threatened, the espionage is reduced to a personnel or disciplinary problem — a problem in ethics.

No doubt that quarter-wit naked emperor would have wanted to punish the young spy who leaked the information that the emperor was a delusional jaybird.

Let's face it. The U.S. request — “extradite him (Snowden) because he has embarrassed us” — is so ludicrous that civilized governments do not know how to respond.

Re: “Is there really a line or a bottleneck,” Josh Brodesky, Another View, July 4:

Brodesky explains the difficulty for many immigrants who have to wait 10 years before obtaining citizenship due to the huge backlog. Sadly, one party tells them to get to the back of the line, pay taxes, undergo background checks and learn English. And, in the meantime, they want to spend billions for enhanced border security. Is this really constructive or obstructionist?

I am starting to lose hope for a bipartisan solution. Perhaps we have to wait. If so, I remain optimistic for 2014, when we can elect leaders who are not obstructionists.

Re: “Why won't my party protect the rights of women,” Another View, July 21:

Thank you, Allison, for speaking up for those of us who have not raised our voices enough within the party. I, too, feel that our party is failing the women of Texas and possibly around the nation when it blatantly speaks falsely about why it wanted this law passed.

It was not for keeping women safe, as was stated. It was for making abortions more difficult to obtain. It was for injecting government into conversations meant for doctors and patients.

The Republican Party has always been my party. It's always been a lady, but now it's an old lady who hasn't changed her style in 40 years. It still sings the old tunes hoping for a new sound. It's stale and frumpy. It doesn't know how to “turn anyone on” anymore.

We need new faces and new thoughts to regenerate new conversations about old subjects.